Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the cost ($0.01 USDC via x402) and the handling of variations, which are useful. However, it does not describe the output format, potential error conditions, or rate limits. It adds some context but not rich behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds examples and cost information. Every sentence contributes value, and it is appropriately compact for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and examples, but it omits any mention of the output format (what the canonical form looks like) and does not explain the optional 'algorithm' parameter beyond the schema's minimal note. While annotations cover safety, the lack of return-value description and algorithm guidance leaves moderate gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: country is 'Country name to standardize' and algorithm is 'Algorithm variant (optional)'. The description adds examples of country variations ('Great Britain', etc.) but does not clarify the 'algorithm' parameter (e.g., when to use 'ai-medium' vs default). It adds marginal value over the schema, which already explains both parameters. Given the high coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool standardizes a country name to a canonical form, with concrete examples ('Great Britain', 'UK', 'United Kingdom') that illustrate the transformation. This is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like interzoid_country_info or interzoid_official_name, which might also handle country names, so it loses a point for missing sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for normalization specifically, nor does it contrast with country_info (for detailed data) or official_name (for official nomenclature). No exclusions or preferred contexts are given, so an agent must infer usage purely from the purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.